Offseason pondering...Inconsistent running game

[Deus Irae]

What I'm getting at is the Morris injury took the offensive philosophy off track. It was routinely explosive in the first 5 games with a good balance of run/pass, then it turned volcanic in the next 5 with emphasis on the pass. While scoring was up, the philosophy didn't improve necessarily. During the latter part of the season the Pats basically had to dedicate a whole game to running the ball (Jets part 2) just to get Maroney ready for the postseason. The Jax and SD playoff games were impressive as far as balancing the offense, and while the games were close, the Pats used the running game to take command. In the SB, the Pats had no offensive rhythm except for the 2 scoring drives.

But your logic is wrong because you don't take into account the on-field realities. They ran the ball in JetsII because they couldn't pass in the weather (just think back to the Revis interception). As for the Super Bowl, the line stunk up the joint once Neal left the game. Run or pass, it failed to get the job done. Balance, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it: the O-line got its collective ass handed to it. This was the most potent offense in NFL history, and people are letting a fluke loss in the Super Bowl cause them to find flaws where there aren't any and to imagine little flaws to be enormous problems.

 

[richpats]

Balance, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it: the O-line got its collective ass handed to it. This was the most potent offense in NFL history, and people are letting a fluke loss in the Super Bowl cause them to find flaws where there aren't any and to imagine little flaws to be enormous problems.

Well if the o-line can get undressed that badly then that is a potential flaw. We've seen their struggles against speed-rushing teams such as Indy, Miami, NYG.

 

[BradyManny]

Well, another thing we saw out of the 'HEY, WE'RE RUNNING THE BALL!" formations was a tremendous amount of success with play action. I honestly don't think it's a matter of needing more balance, since I'm not really bothered by 44/56 or 43/57 when you've got this much passing firepower. That's just about the same ratio as the Colts, and it's skewed by the team's willingness to just avoid even trying to run the ball against stout defensive lines.

That's a good point - but I think the Colts rely on deception a little bit more. The Pats do a good job of setting up the play action by creating patterns, but its really a matter of whether you want to surprise a team or keep them guessing.

Running 10 times in a game in a certain formation to show off a pattern - that sets up the opportunity to run play-action and catch a team guessing wrong. The Colts, IMO, use play-action not to make teams guess wrong, but just to make them question whether its a run or a pass. They love running that stretch run, but just as often, it's play action, so when teams see them line up and start to run it, you can't really commit if you're an LB or in the DB. That's why it's effective.

I've been saying it for a little while now, and it almost makes me vomit whenever I say it, but given the personnel on this team, I really want to see them adopt some more of the offensive philosophies that have made Manning and the Colts successful. As long as its within Brady's comfort zone, introducing more deception into this offense could be really lethal, and prevent things like the Super Bowl from happening in that in the rare instance the team is not able to execute better then the opposing defense, it can rely on deception based off of balance in the offense.

 

[PatsFan37]

Well if the o-line can get undressed that badly then that is a potential flaw. We've seen their struggles against speed-rushing teams such as Indy, Miami, NYG.

The problem is that no team can be everything. If they used a high pick on an Olineman, which pick would it be? Wheatley? They needed a CB. Crable? They needed depth at OLB. I sure won't second-guess their #1 pick, and anyway I like it.

The one pick you could argue (at the risk of making this thread instantly popular) is they should have taken a guard or tackle instead of a QB in the 3rd round. But again, they need to develop depth there as well.

As for struggling against speed-rushing teams, heck, everyone does. Since the offense is centered around Brady, as Brady goes, so goes the team. That's also true of the Colts. In both cases, it's the right choice. To say they can't get the tough yards on the ground against quality defenses, well that's pretty much true of every team. The Pats are a quality defense because they're good at stopping opponents from getting those tough yards on the ground.

I'm not saying the OL is perfect, just that it's less imperfect than other positions, and nowhere near as bad as that one game made it seem.

 

[BradyManny]

The problem is that no team can be everything. If they used a high pick on an Olineman, which pick would it be? Wheatley? They needed a CB. Crable? They needed depth at OLB. I sure won't second-guess their #1 pick, and anyway I like it.

The one pick you could argue (at the risk of making this thread instantly popular) is they should have taken a guard or tackle instead of a QB in the 3rd round. But again, they need to develop depth there as well.

As for struggling against speed-rushing teams, heck, everyone does. Since the offense is centered around Brady, as Brady goes, so goes the team. That's also true of the Colts. In both cases, it's the right choice. To say they can't get the tough yards on the ground against quality defenses, well that's pretty much true of every team. The Pats are a quality defense because they're good at stopping opponents from getting those tough yards on the ground.

I'm not saying the OL is perfect, just that it's less imperfect than other positions, and nowhere near as bad as that one game made it seem.

I was hoping they would take a Rinehart, Donald Thomas kind of guy in the mid rounds, but in hindsight, they have invested development in O'Cal, Britt & Yates, and it wouldn't be worth kicking one of them off. If they were going to upgrade on the OL, it was going to happen in Round 1, and it didn't, and Mayo was the right pick and the best way to improve the team. Ultimately, you're right on point, you can't address all needs, and this OL is good enough to protect for the best QB in history and the most explosive offense we've ever seen. Could it be improved? Sure. But I'm OK going into the season w the same group.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well if the o-line can get undressed that badly then that is a potential flaw. We've seen their struggles against speed-rushing teams such as Indy, Miami, NYG.

Freeney and Mathis, Taylor and company, and Strahan and company don't give the line trouble because they are fast. They give the line trouble because they are among the best pass rushing defenses in the NFL. It makes sense that the best lines in the league would be the lines giving them trouble.

There are teams with a lot of speed on the D-line that don't give the Patriots that same kind of trouble. I agree that Light and Kaszur seem to be susceptible to the fastest rushers in the league (it's why I wanted to draft a tackle, particularly Clady who's strength is supposed to be against the pass), but so is every other tackle in the NFL. That's why players like Jason Taylor and Michael Strahan win DPOY awards and set sack records, and undersized DE's who aren't very good against the run, like Freeney, still get massive contracts.

 

[cstjohn17]

But your logic is wrong because you don't take into account the on-field realities. They ran the ball in JetsII because they couldn't pass in the weather (just think back to the Revis interception). As for the Super Bowl, the line stunk up the joint once Neal left the game. Run or pass, it failed to get the job done. Balance, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it: the O-line got its collective ass handed to it. This was the most potent offense in NFL history, and people are letting a fluke loss in the Super Bowl cause them to find flaws where there aren't any and to imagine little flaws to be enormous problems.

As potent as the offense was it just goes down in the long line of high powered air attacks that couldn't close the deal (Air Correal Chargers, 2001 Rams, 2004 Colts, etc.). It is kind of funny that even in the last 2-3 games when they were forcing the ball to Moss (even when the other team knew it), they still put good numbers. As soon as they got the record and didn't have to force it to Moss the offense slipped. Funny, but not in a ha-ha funny kind of way.

 

[RayClay]

Notice that when Morris went down (the Dallas game) that's when the offense started to get crazy - NE had to lean on the pass more, and they were so overwhelming for most opponents that it turned into 48, 49, 50, 56-point games. But this was ultimately bad for the offense as it was less productive over the last 9 games.

NE needs a running game that it has a lot of faith in, like 2004. On 3rd-and-3 everyone in the building knows whats coming - a pass.

Faith is a funny concept. 5 linemen they bought at a Walmart clearance and Pokey Antowaine Smith aren't exactly inspiring. Yet they got the job done a couple years because they stuck with it.

Running is rhythm between the backs and line. Good rhythm is attained through repitition.

 

[RayClay]

And their backups at guard are quite serviceable. Think again back to 2001, with no long passing game and street free agents and we got it done.